I presume there will be no difficulty in accomplishing this. Nothing more is necessary than to set forth in the process,
that the party who brings the suit is a citizen of a different state from the one against whom the suit is brought and
there can be little doubt but that the court will take cognizance of the matter. And if they do, who is to restrain them?
Indeed, I will freely confess, that it is my decided opinion, that the courts ought to take cognizance of such causes under
the powers of the constitution. For one of the great ends of the constitution is, “to establish justice.” This supposes that
this cannot be done under the existing governments of the states; and there is certainly as good reason why individuals,
living in the same state, should have justice, as those who live in different states. Moreover, the constitution expressly
declares, that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states”....

Anti-Federalist 83

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY AND THE ISSUE OF TRIAL BY JURY

[Luther Martin] (excerpt)

Maryland

Thus, sir, jury trials, which have ever been the boast of the English constitution-which have been by our several state constitutions
so cautiously secured to us-jury trials, which have so long been considered the surest barrier against arbitrary power, and the palladium
of liberty, with the loss of which the loss of our freedom may be dated, are taken away by the proposed form of government, not only in a
great variety of questions between individual and individual, but in every case, whether civil or criminal, arising under the laws of the
United States, or the execution of those laws. It is taken away in those very cases where, of all others, it is most essential for our liberty
to have it sacredly guarded and preserved: in every case, whether civil or criminal, between government and its officers on the one part, and
the subject or citizen on the other....

Anti-Federalist 82

THE POWER OF THE JUDICIARY (PART 4)

[Brutus] (excerpt)

Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial.
They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the
temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals,
with which the public will not be generally acquainted. One adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one. These
cases will immediately affect individuals only, so that a series of determinations will probably take place before even the people will be
informed of them....

Anti-Federalist Paper 84

ON THE LACK OF A BILL OF RIGHTS

[BRUTUS] (excerpt)

This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal experience. Those who have governed,
have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where
any sense of freedom remained, to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an
eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more,
I presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there is not one of them but
what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights....